The nature of consciousness

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A subject that does not change at all is as inconceivable as one that is only changing. From this it follows that neither change nor permanence is the nature of anything. They are labels for temporal patterns, nothing more. From the perspective of Eternity, everything is a non-changing eternal constant.

How could "Eternity" have a perspective? You're still stuck with labels. Better make sure you've the best one possible in your context.

As for change or permanency: it was been said already that Tao-in-change does not equal Tao-eternal. Which is in my view the wisest way to interpret the first line of Tao Te Ching. The truth here is that this distinction is exactly the nature of any awareness being demonstrated. Obviously it does not reveal the true nature of Tao beyond a fundamental ambivalence (does she move or not?).

You're indeed making "sense" of objects, with the object equalling your larger, contextual relationship with it. There's a lot beyond it but your objects won't be there.

No, objects have to be "there" if we are experiencing them. "A lot beyond it" is just another object that you have experienced, then mistakenly equated it with "your objects".

You cannot be sure at all what the objects are which you are experiencing since your knowledge, like your experiences, would be constantly changing. While it's true that "beyond" is another perspective, like "totality", it's a rather unique attempt to destroy the conceptual object with another conceptual object. Some labels are just better than others, like some philosophers are better than others. No way around it.

That conclusion can itself cannot be anything experiential, so it must at least start logically.

Why is logical deduction not experiential?

As it would remain just like opinion and could not deduce with any certainty that it would be more than that. What one is deducing is the cause of the experience itself. In this way awareness is different from an itch and yet we could say they both need some nerve.

[jupiviv]

A subject that does not change at all is as inconceivable as one that is only changing. From this it follows that neither change nor permanence is the nature of anything. They are labels for temporal patterns, nothing more. From the perspective of Eternity, everything is a non-changing eternal constant.

How could "Eternity" have a perspective? You're still stuck with labels. Better make sure you've the best one possible in your context.

You're prevaricating by splitting hairs about individual terms. Obviously "perspective" was not meant literally. Besides, the larger point which you are deliberately ignoring is that change/constancy cannot be the nature of anything.

As for change or permanency: it was been said already that Tao-in-change does not equal Tao-eternal. Which is in my view the wisest way to interpret the first line of Tao Te Ching. The truth here is that this distinction is exactly the nature of any awareness being demonstrated. Obviously it does not reveal the true nature of Tao beyond a fundamental ambivalence (does she move or not?).

If a thing changes, then other things remain permanent. If it endures, then other things change. If it both changes and endures, then other things do likewise. Neither of these is the eternal Tao.

You cannot be sure at all what the objects are which you are experiencing since your knowledge, like your experiences, would be constantly changing.

There are many ways this argument can be debunked:

1>>According to this reasoning, we cannot be sure whether the object called "you" is not sure about what they are experiencing, since said object is in constant change. For instance this "you" can in the very next moment change into a "you" who *is* sure about what they are experiencing. The reasoning is fallacious because it is self-contradictory - it does not assume any possibility of contradiction, yet proposes a universe where it can be contradicted.

2a>>How does one prove that a thing is a *completely* different thing at each moment? It is impossible to do so because the act of proving assumes continuity.

or,

2b>>If experiences are constantly changing, then that very assertion is false, since it has already changed to mean something different.

3>> In a different vein, if we aren't sure what objects are, we cannot know they are constantly changing.

4>>If we aren't sure what objects we experience, we cannot even be sure that we are experiencing at all!

Some labels are just better than others, like some philosophers are better than others. No way around it.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

Why is logical deduction not experiential?

As it would remain just like opinion and could not deduce with any certainty that it would be more than that.

So you say, but you have yet to prove that experience is *inherently* vague/illusory/uncertain.

What one is deducing is the cause of the experience itself.

And how is that not an experience? Even if the cause is an abstract concept like "everything else" or "one of many things", it is still an experienced object. Deductions have to be *deduced from* somewhere/something.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If a thing changes, then other things remain permanent. If it endures, then other things change. If it both changes and endures, then other things do likewise. Neither of these is the eternal Tao.

The eternal Tao is the unchanging Tao. That's why it's called "eternal". There's no other meaning to it unless for you it's something magical, like things.

Any other, contemporary Tao is the changing Tao. But in the end of course, Tao is neither just constant or change. Not both and not neither. And yet Tao "speaks" as well, which creates that perspective. As long it leads to or includes awareness of its own disposition, there is no conflict here.

how does one prove that a thing is a *completely* different thing at each moment? It is impossible to do so because the act of proving assumes continuity.

Why do you think it needs "proof" here? Philosophical truth is always higher than provability. It seems you are trying to make it into some science project, with objects to test in the laboratory? You need to get out of that space. You can only, philosophically, know something truly by starting at the beginning. To see change and constancy, for example. A life, a discussion, a train of thought or a set of experiences all can form a way.

3>> In a different vein, if we aren't sure what objects are, we cannot know they are constantly changing.

Change as some property of your object. That's not the change I'm referring to. The object or its experience is possible because of changes.

4>>If we aren't sure what objects we experience, we cannot even be sure that we are experiencing at all!

The moment it's being established that there's not nothing whatsoever, that could be called basic awareness I suppose.

And how is that not an experience? Even if the cause is an abstract concept like "everything else" or "one of many things", it is still an experienced object. Deductions have to be *deduced from* somewhere/something.

You can deduce just a base, a start for all assumptions. And then find out that it can never be any experience or object itself.

[jupiviv]

Any other, contemporary Tao is the changing Tao. But in the end of course, Tao is neither just constant or change. Not both and not neither. And yet Tao "speaks" as well, which creates that perspective. As long it leads to or includes awareness of its own disposition, there is no conflict here.

I can't decipher much of this, but at least you seem to agree that change and permanence are not the nature of anything.

how does one prove that a thing is a *completely* different thing at each moment? It is impossible to do so because the act of proving assumes continuity.

Why do you think it needs "proof" here? Philosophical truth is always higher than provability. It seems you are trying to make it into some science project, with objects to test in the laboratory? You need to get out of that space. You can only, philosophically, know something truly by starting at the beginning. To see change and constancy, for example. A life, a discussion, a train of thought or a set of experiences all can form a way.

Philosophy requires different proofs than science. For example, I stated that the act of proving that there is no continuity itself requires continuity, which proves that proofs require continuity.

3>> In a different vein, if we aren't sure what objects are, we cannot know they are constantly changing.

Change as some property of your object. That's not the change I'm referring to. The object or its experience is possible because of changes.

It is also possible because of continuity. If an object or experience is always changing then we cannot even know what they are let alone whether they are changing.

4>>If we aren't sure what objects we experience, we cannot even be sure that we are experiencing at all!

The moment it's being established that there's not nothing whatsoever, that could be called basic awareness I suppose.

And that is the extent of your concession of this point?

And how is that not an experience? Even if the cause is an abstract concept like "everything else" or "one of many things", it is still an experienced object. Deductions have to be *deduced from* somewhere/something.

You can deduce just a base, a start for all assumptions. And then find out that it can never be any experience or object itself.

But it doesn't work that way. A deduction is itself an experience, as is an assumption or a perception. Experience cannot be uncertain, and if we think it is then we are contradicting ourselves because that very thought is also an experience.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Any other, contemporary Tao is the changing Tao. But in the end of course, Tao is neither just constant or change. Not both and not neither. And yet Tao "speaks" as well, which creates that perspective. As long it leads to or includes awareness of its own disposition, there is no conflict here.

I can't decipher much of this, but at least you seem to agree that change and permanence are not the nature of anything.

If there's to be a nature of anything at all, it would be some variant on "change versus permanence". This is a lot like the self-aware beginning of the Tao Te Ching: it's not meaning much beyond that basic dualism when it comes to studying the nature and power "of all things", of all existence. Instead people prefer to read something about eternity and a beyond in those lines. They desire to create yet another Thing, a magical Object to rule them all. Ironically that very text is challenging that notion in a most impressive and repetitive manner. In the same way I'm challenging things and object while people at times respond with the idea that I believe literally in brains, consciousness, materialism, "change as property" or many other misunderstandings of my intended meaning.

Why do you think it needs "proof" here? Philosophical truth is always higher than provability. It seems you are trying to make it into some science project, with objects to test in the laboratory? You need to get out of that space. You can only, philosophically, know something truly by starting at the beginning. To see change and constancy, for example. A life, a discussion, a train of thought or a set of experiences all can form a way.

Philosophy requires different proofs than science. For example, I stated that the act of proving that there is no continuity itself requires continuity, which proves that proofs require continuity.

That way you are creating circular tracks and "requirements" for others to run into. It's the nature of the axiom to require itself to arrive at that axiom. But its provability lies beyond it by definition. It's the same really in all of science and logic.

If an object or experience is always changing then we cannot even know what they are let alone whether they are changing.

Exactly. But if you can philosophically establish change as fundamental to its nature, one can gain insight into the nature of things.

A deduction is itself an experience, as is an assumption or a perception. Experience cannot be uncertain, and if we think it is then we are contradicting ourselves because that very thought is also an experience.

Uncertainty is just an expression or realization of change. The fact that this insight needs to be subject to the same change does not invalidate it. Actually it would just prove it to be true. In any case, you cannot demand a fundamental principle to be proven by what is derived from it. The philosophical path is about arriving at truths by the direct realization that nothing is possible without that truth being the case. And that by not realizing the truth, ignorance on the matter will be embraced or believed instead. That's the nature of mind as long as its being active. Truth seeking is a cure for misunderstanding. It's not providing much more than that.

[jupiviv]

Any other, contemporary Tao is the changing Tao. But in the end of course, Tao is neither just constant or change. Not both and not neither. And yet Tao "speaks" as well, which creates that perspective. As long it leads to or includes awareness of its own disposition, there is no conflict here.

I can't decipher much of this, but at least you seem to agree that change and permanence are not the nature of anything.

If there's to be a nature of anything at all, it would be some variant on "change versus permanence".

Why?

They desire to create yet another Thing, a magical Object to rule them all. Ironically that very text is challenging that notion in a most impressive and repetitive manner. In the same way I'm challenging things and object while people at times respond with the idea that I believe literally in brains, consciousness, materialism, "change as property" or many other misunderstandings of my intended meaning.

You just posited *two* basic, magical Objects above with the "basic dualism" of "change vs permanence"!

Why do you think it needs "proof" here? Philosophical truth is always higher than provability. It seems you are trying to make it into some science project, with objects to test in the laboratory? You need to get out of that space. You can only, philosophically, know something truly by starting at the beginning. To see change and constancy, for example. A life, a discussion, a train of thought or a set of experiences all can form a way.

Philosophy requires different proofs than science. For example, I stated that the act of proving that there is no continuity itself requires continuity, which proves that proofs require continuity.

That way you are creating circular tracks and "requirements" for others to run into. It's the nature of the axiom to require itself to arrive at that axiom. But its provability lies beyond it by definition. It's the same really in all of science and logic.

No, an axiom's provability lies within it by definition. A false axiom is precisely that which requires an external proof, i.e., one not logically following from the premises: Socrates is an old man> young men are bald> therefore Socrates is bald.

If an object or experience is always changing then we cannot even know what they are let alone whether they are changing.

Exactly. But if you can philosophically establish change as fundamental to its nature, one can gain insight into the nature of things.

And why should we even do that if change is, in fact, fundamental to the nature of things? Whatever truth we establish would change in the very next moment! The only way this works is by excluding the truth that "all things change" and the awareness of same from that very same truth.

Uncertainty is just an expression or realization of change. The fact that this insight needs to be subject to the same change does not invalidate it. Actually it would just prove it to be true.

If this insight - true to its premise - changes into something else, like a directly contradictory insight (everything stays the same), then it is no longer true. It also contradicts itself if it stays true for a time instead of undergoing instantaneous transformation, and even if it recurs.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If there's to be a nature of anything at all, it would be some variant on "change versus permanence".

Why?

Because "nature of anything" means usually its causality, which is a function of change. Or perhaps nature as some "inherent" quality, any fundamental process or function connected to that object. But to observe this we need the sense of constancy against a changing backdrop. If this would not be the case, there would be only rapid changes and no discernible quality or property. Thus qualities, a "nature", arises out of the difference between permanency and change. And even if we'd make the case that it's just a difference between the rate of change, as it all would change all the time, we still need a constancy to measure any rate of change. Even scientific time implies an immutable past being created in the back. Or a relatively immutable spacetime continuum, symmetry breaking and so on. But first and foremost it's valid in any philosophy of existence.

Therefore any "nature" or "way" would be a fundamental dialectic between change and permanence.

You just posited *two* basic, magical Objects above with the "basic dualism" of "change vs permanence"!

Every axiomatic truth would qualify in the sense you're using the word magic. But magic usually refers to some invocation, a shutting down of reason and suspending the principle of causality. While the two items I was invoking only confirm and apply reason and causality. They can even be abandoned while people normally use [magical] objects to cling to. Or to be more accurate: objects arise out of clinging. Two perspectives on the same. There's a special category of "magical objects" invoked in a dialogue which only serve to undo and unwind the fabric of magic, to weaken the attachments. It's like saying all spoken wisdom is just another bunch of words and images, therefore essentially delusional. Yes and no! Changing and permanent.

No, an axiom's provability lies within it by definition. A false axiom is precisely that which requires an external proof, i.e., one not logically following from the premises: Socrates is an old man> young men are bald> therefore Socrates is bald.

The axiom is the premise. It cannot follow from itself. That's why they're called axiom, postulate or premise. Please reconsider your angle here.

And why should we even do that if change is, in fact, fundamental to the nature of things? Whatever truth we establish would change in the very next moment! The only way this works is by excluding the truth that "all things change" and the awareness of same from that very same truth.

It depends if you want find just some big truth or the "absolute truth". Absolute truth just means axiomatic to all other truths, unchanging, eternal, remaining true by any definition and unavoidably so. To paraphrase Weininger, we may be assured of such a first principle, although no living
man can reach it -- towards such a principle these words press and will not flag.

If this insight - true to its premise - changes into something else, like a directly contradictory insight (everything stays the same), then it is no longer true. It also contradicts itself if it stays true for a time instead of undergoing instantaneous transformation, and even if it recurs.

The higher truth remains true but it's only demonstrated one can never prove the premise with everything that might follow from it. In the same way a principle cannot be confirmed or challenged by anything derived from that very principle. What is left is approaching it, with a certain way, a certain life and a certain truth. Or just as well to learn: uncertain ways, uncertain life and uncertain truths.

[JohnPaolucci]

Ahh, The nature of consciousness.
First back to square ONE.
ONE absolute no-thing, no attributes, no variations, formless: being.
Being is also un-manifest pure intelligence. Not intelligent, but intelligence. Intelligent requires form.
Pure intelligence becomes aware of itself and becomes consciousness. = I am. (this was not a very long time ago, but is always already right now-ness)
I am reverberates within his completeness and says to himself, "Now I become many."
One of those many ponders the nature of consciousness in an internet forum.
On it goes and goes until ultimately the many re-discover that they are always already being/ONE.
At that point they celebrate the full range of their existence in effulgence.
Sound natural?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi John, welcome.

Well, since you ask, to me it sounds rather scripted, rehashed and unnatural. The question is if you're willing to reflect upon it or if you want to just repeat it as gospel? Do you ever wonder if your view on the matter is as clear as it can be? In terms of knowing as well as feeling, intuiting and seeing?

One way to move forward is to dialogue, to dig and see if it can become sharper, if it can be combed over and parasites, lice and other "artificial" creatures can be removed. And in my view there often is a lot to do, if one is willing to go back to square one -- repeatedly -- to learn again. Of course not only in words or forum activity. But it can be a trigger.

Here's my take on your post, sliced:

• "ONE absolute no-thing, no attributes, no variations, formless: being."

Okay, although better to use "no-being" instead of "being" as to prevent the tricky mentation of actually personally "being" in some eternal way (aka "Ego").

• "Being is also un-manifest pure intelligence. Not intelligent, but intelligence. Intelligent requires form.

The term seems not at all needed here. It sounds to me like magical quality "intelligence" as we're talking about something beyond purpose or reason. Introducing any hint of intelligence would confuse many people and they'd project a selfish being, some mentation on it again.

• "On it goes and goes until ultimately the many re-discover that they are always already being/ONE."

Being is always manifold because of causation. If emptiness if your "thing", better abandon any notion of being, combined or alone. Leave it behind.

• "At that point they celebrate the full range of their existence in effulgence."

What do you think of these lines from Otto Weininger since you're dabbling with the arts:

The artist has breathed the world in so he can to breathe it out; for the philosopher it is breathed out and he must breathe it in again. ... It is the very ideal of an artistic genius to live in all people, to lose himself in everyone, to emanate in the plurality; meanwhile the philosopher has the task to recover all others in himself, to reabsorb them into a unity which will now always be his unity.

[jupiviv]

If there's to be a nature of anything at all, it would be some variant on "change versus permanence".

Why?

Because "nature of anything" means usually its causality, which is a function of change. Or perhaps nature as some "inherent" quality, any fundamental process or function connected to that object. But to observe this we need the sense of constancy against a changing backdrop. If this would not be the case, there would be only rapid changes and no discernible quality or property. Thus qualities, a "nature", arises out of the difference between permanency and change. And even if we'd make the case that it's just a difference between the rate of change, as it all would change all the time, we still need a constancy to measure any rate of change. Even scientific time implies an immutable past being created in the back. Or a relatively immutable spacetime continuum, symmetry breaking and so on. But first and foremost it's valid in any philosophy of existence.

Firstly, causality is not a function of change or anything else. Secondly, change cannot have any functions because it is not an entity of any kind.

As for "rate of change", what you really mean is the rate of change of *change* itself rather than some specific object, so the term as you use it is meaningless.

You just posited *two* basic, magical Objects above with the "basic dualism" of "change vs permanence"!

Every axiomatic truth would qualify in the sense you're using the word magic. But magic usually refers to some invocation, a shutting down of reason and suspending the principle of causality. While the two items I was invoking only confirm and apply reason and causality. They can even be abandoned while people normally use [magical] objects to cling to. Or to be more accurate: objects arise out of clinging. Two perspectives on the same. There's a special category of "magical objects" invoked in a dialogue which only serve to undo and unwind the fabric of magic, to weaken the attachments. It's like saying all spoken wisdom is just another bunch of words and images, therefore essentially delusional. Yes and no! Changing and permanent.

It isn't possible to demonstrate that X *isn't* Y when nothing indicates that X *is* Y! You are merely assuming without reason that all axioms are identical to the one you proposed. I have demonstrated above and previously that the dualism you propose is arbitrary, whereas the dualism of for example A and not-A can be demonstrated to not be arbitrary. Unless you can demonstrate that the latter is arbitrary as well, which you haven't, you do not have an argument.

No, an axiom's provability lies within it by definition. A false axiom is precisely that which requires an external proof, i.e., one not logically following from the premises: Socrates is an old man> young men are bald> therefore Socrates is bald.

The axiom is the premise. It cannot follow from itself. That's why they're called axiom, postulate or premise. Please reconsider your angle here.

Got me there :) What I should have said is that the proof for an axiom/premise follows from the axiom itself. Where the supposed proof does not follow from the axiom itself, you have what I termed "external" proof and thus a false axiom.

And why should we even do that if change is, in fact, fundamental to the nature of things? Whatever truth we establish would change in the very next moment! The only way this works is by excluding the truth that "all things change" and the awareness of same from that very same truth.

It depends if you want find just some big truth or the "absolute truth". Absolute truth just means axiomatic to all other truths, unchanging, eternal, remaining true by any definition and unavoidably so. To paraphrase Weininger, we may be assured of such a first principle, although no living
man can reach it -- towards such a principle these words press and will not flag.

Sounds to me like copping out rather than pressing on. This absolute truth cannot be axiomatic to any truth at all because according to it no other truth can exist for reasons already stated.

If this insight - true to its premise - changes into something else, like a directly contradictory insight (everything stays the same), then it is no longer true. It also contradicts itself if it stays true for a time instead of undergoing instantaneous transformation, and even if it recurs.

The higher truth remains true but it's only demonstrated one can never prove the premise with everything that might follow from it. In the same way a principle cannot be confirmed or challenged by anything derived from that very principle. What is left is approaching it, with a certain way, a certain life and a certain truth.

Actually, anything whatsoever would prove the higher truth, therefore excluding *specific* proof (the kind required by science and ordinary reasoning).

Or just as well to learn: uncertain ways, uncertain life and uncertain truths.

Which can be anything you want them to be, including certain ways, life and truths. What you really want to be "uncertain" of is what those things actually are!

[JohnPaolucci]

Hi John, welcome.

The question is if you're willing to reflect upon it or if you want to just repeat it as gospel? Do you ever wonder if your view on the matter is as clear as it can be? In terms of knowing as well as feeling, intuiting and seeing?
***It's an ongoing process of refinement - a full time job.

Okay, although better to use "no-being" instead of "being" as to prevent the tricky mentation of actually personally "being" in some eternal way (aka "Ego").
***Agreed, good to drop being. I could explain what I mean, but I'll just drop it.


What do you think of these lines from Otto Weininger since you're dabbling with the arts:
meanwhile the philosopher has the task to recover all others in himself, to reabsorb them into a unity which will now always be his unity.

[/quote]
***I think the artist should do that with not only other folks, but with all attributes of the universe. I got into that deeply with my YouTube video. You can go to YouTube and do a search on: Advanced Portrait Painting Through Universal Line. My second video is where I get right in there with the inner work that is valuable: The 10m Command Session – Follow-up to the first video. Both are also in PDF form on my site -the url is listed at the end of the videos.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: If emptiness if your "thing", better abandon any notion of being, combined or alone. Leave it behind.

Diebert: What do you think of these lines from Otto Weininger since you're dabbling with the arts:
meanwhile the philosopher has the task to recover all others in himself, to reabsorb them into a unity which will now always be his unity.

"All others?" Not trying to nit pick, but to demonstrate just how difficult is the challenge to find a language that wisely expresses the truth of emptiness. And not only finding the language, but speaking it at just the right time according to the degree of discerned ignorance/wisdom present in the mind of the receiver. Ha, already I've broken an essential tenet of emptiness by using the concept 'receiver', as if there are dual selves present in the discussion of emptiness, a 'sender' and a 'receiver.'

Perhaps this is the greatest suffering of all, finding the perfect way and time to speak of emptiness.

[JohnPaolucci]

[[[Perhaps this is the greatest suffering of all, finding the perfect way and time to speak of emptiness.]]]

I'll pull some text from my PDF and see if this is an answer that may assist you.
(from ulineart dot com - my book) Here the J is me and I'm talking in first person as the ONE person who is and does the universe.

M: Whoa, you’re really getting “out there.” Getting back to my feet on planet earth, in my private dream I have lots of days where things go wrong. I’m not inspired to paint, my colors don’t come out right, I mess up my drawing, get distracted, and so on. It’s not like I sat down and said, “Okay, now in my private dream I’m going to have an off day.” How and why do those things happen?

J: While I answer this question, I’m going to make clear the hierarchy of truths and maintain them in their proper order. More incomplete truths will be below my most complete truth. There are layers of truths. In this way, everything is true. Here is a pyramid to symbolize them. At the top is an eye symbolizing seeing all. I’ll answer what happened from the top down:

1. Nothing happened, there is only flat-line no-thing. Everything else is simply an illusion of perception and not true.
2. Everything that happens is in your best interest as my perfect always-already plan. If you could see all the details of the universe, you would do exactly the same thing. All alone, I only do what I love to do.
3. Right now, all alone, no one else besides you, you’re simply telling yourself how your universe works and believing your own story: “It happens that I have off days.” Whatever you call your universe, that it becomes.
4. You did something to violate my laws, my rules of procedure that are in place to guide you on your line of expansion. You received the consequences of your violation. This was organized by my host overseer support system – celestial beings in heaven – who execute all my rules and maintain the path of your evolution to make sure that in your adventure, you finally return to me.
5. You’re learning life’s lessons the hard way.
6. You just had an off day: shit happens. (smile)

7. The world is chaos, everything is ultimately against you, and you’re doomed to failure in the end. Fight it the best you can and sometimes you’ll get temporary wins that make life more worth living.

Let me tell you of a conversation between characters to help you understand how all seven are true.

Farmer Sod:  I know the earth is flat. We cut a path through those hills starting from side to side, and the road is as flat as a ruler. When it rained, the water just sat there and didn’t flow off end to end. I know with every fiber of my being that the earth is flat.



Dr. Hardball, geologist:  Yes, Farmer Sod, what you say is true, but there’s a more complete truth that’s beyond your perception. The earth is a sphere of minerals held together by gravitational force. You just need to know what to look for so that you can confirm it for yourself. Let me show you how to track the movement of the stars, and then, with a telescope, watch ships proceed toward you on the horizon.



John Paolucci:  Dr. Hardball, the earth isn’t just a sphere of minerals held together by gravitational force. There’s a more complete truth beyond your present perception. The earth is at the center of the universe within you. The root meaning of the word earth is ‘outer condition.’ You’re sole commander of a metaphysical dream called the universe, and the earth is an outer condition of your indivisible universal mind. Let me show you what to look for so that you can confirm this for yourself – how everything has ONE-thing in common, and that you are that thing – how that thing is more than time-space, so that all of it fills the container you call you. – how your totality makes you One all-person in charge of everything.


Reverend Bibleybelt: So you think you’re God, huh? Reverend Bibleybelt takes John by the arm and points to a tree in the distance. “Look at that tree over there. Did you create that tree?” (He expects a “no.”)
John Paolucci: Yes, not only did I create that tree, but I created a fabric of identity for myself to forget the details of how I did create it. I created reduced perception so that it would be easy for me to conclude that I didn’t. Now there’s a place for me to expand into more perception, until perception confirms that I’m sitting on the throne as the Supreme Almighty who makes everything, including trees and you.

J: Here’s another example:

H2O, which stands for two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, come in the forms of vapor, water, and ice. H2O always remains H2O, even though its nature is to transform from and into these various states. H2O is the greater or more essential truth of water, and there’s no contradiction between the two. Normally, when you speak of water, you don’t say it’s hydrogen-oxygen. That’s because in the context of localized interaction, there’s practical utility in making the distinction of the lesser truth as they’re called in any of the forms, solid, liquid, or gas. If there’s ice on my windshield, I’d prefer that someone tell me it’s ice, instead of telling me it’s H2O. Then I’d know to use an ice scraper. There’s practical utility in making the distinction between greater and lesser truths.

Right now in my universe, your place is to remember that you are me and to act on that by painting a very advanced portrait painting by expressing directly from universal line. Another time I merely may have told you that shit happens and to just bite the bullet. Both are simply different spots on your line of expansion as an emerging localized realm-being.

M: Got it. Let’s do it!

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: Perhaps this is the greatest suffering of all, finding the perfect way and time to speak of emptiness.

John: I'll pull some text from my PDF and see if this is an answer that may assist you.
(from ulineart dot com - my book) Here the J is me and I'm talking in first person as the ONE person who is and does the universe.

Thanks John, I can see how your vision of the ONE Person that is and does the universe with the universal line can be very helpful. As a counter, I present my wisdom with the intent to suggest a clearer vision. Why do I believe my wisdom to be clearer than yours? Three reasons:

1. Because your concept ONE Person who is all alone with no one beside them has the potential to keep the concept of self alive in consciousness. Belief in self is the antithesis of emptiness.

2. Because your concept of ONE Person who is all alone with no one beside them does not address clearly and directly the absolute nature of things which is that they are caused.

3. Because your concept of the universal line has the potential to keep the concept of linear time and space alive in consciousness. Belief in time and space veils the eternal nature of causation. Perhaps your use of the concept of the universal line is caused by your attraction to painting which makes sense since painting begins and ends with line-making.

My counter, feel free to counter:

"I" am the Causality, empty of self, absolute (whole) of cause. Whatever I cause returns to me instantly as effect. When I am ignorant of my omnipresent causal nature, and instead believe I am a separate subject or a separate object or a part of God or part of the universe, my instant effects return to me in darkness and ignorance, as if self against self or part versus part. When I am unaware that I cause all effects NOW, I suffer my sense of separation from NOW.

When I am wise that I am the Causality empty of self, absolute (whole) of cause, I am also wise that you are the Causality empty of self, absolute of cause. Should we communicate, I am aware of your ignorance or wisdom as to your true nature as the Causality. I am also aware that it is my responsibility to awaken you to your true nature as the Causality according to your ability to hear and understand. If you show no signs of readiness, I cease the communication.

In keeping with the integrity of the subject of this thread and with my comment about suffering the speaking of emptiness, consciousness is an effect of causation and in reading your vision of the ONE Person all alone with no one beside you making or not making a universal line caused in me a suffering to make visible a clearer vision as I know it to be. Whether or not I accomplished this remains to be seen. :-)

[JohnPaolucci]

[[[ 1. Because your concept ONE Person who is all alone with no one beside them has the potential to keep the concept of self alive in consciousness. Belief in self is the antithesis of emptiness.

2. Because your concept of ONE Person who is all alone with no one beside them does not address clearly and directly the absolute nature of things which is that they are caused.

3. Because your concept of the universal line has the potential to keep the concept of linear time and space alive in consciousness. Belief in time and space veils the eternal nature of causation. Perhaps your use of the concept of the universal line is caused by your attraction to painting which makes sense since painting begins and ends with line-making. ]]]

***That's only half the story. My other half is beyond all attributes including ONE all person. Possibly you did not see the whole PDF. In it I say,

"I’m beyond my dream-world and I am my dream-world. I am universal line." (But I will consider saying, "I’m beyond my ONE all person and I am my ONE all person.")

''M: But ONE all-person is a high vibration change, and you just said that all change is not true. So you’re saying that ONE-all person is not true?"

"J: That’s correct. Only my universal line virtual state does not change. We will be dealing with truths that are more completely true than others...]

*** In the text I go to great lengths to clarify that line is absolute no-thing. It's fine to believe in time-space as long as you know it's not the complete truth.

Thanks movingalways. I'm always open to suggestions of expansion and refinement.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I got into that deeply with my YouTube video. ... Both are also in PDF form on my site -the url is listed at the end of the videos.

Since I do not watch "Youtube" or watch or listen any video for any reason but simple entertainment, I guess I'm left out. Anyway, this forum is not for the promotion of a bunch of material stacked elsewhere. If you're not going to discuss like an adult with respect for the house rules, please consider this might not be the right place for your project. Wisdom can only show up in the particular details of a response. In no way answers can be copied over from elsewhere and then think one has actually answered (the other and oneself). To even imply one can just refer to "something" elsewhere is to seriously misunderstand the very topic of this forum.

[JohnPaolucci]

Thanks, I'll review the house rules again.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

.. the challenge to find a language that wisely expresses the truth of emptiness. And not only finding the language, but speaking it at just the right time according to the degree of discerned ignorance/wisdom present in the mind of the receiver.

Just check out my consciousness stream tweeted line by line on my soundcloud page to find the best approach to these matters ;-)

Ha, already I've broken an essential tenet of emptiness by using the concept 'receiver', as if there are dual selves present in the discussion of emptiness, a 'sender' and a 'receiver.'

But they are present as part and parcel of the idea of having a discussion or transmission. It's true that it's all about what one says, where, how and in perfect "response" to whatever is arising in that situation. Here you see the insanity of the virtual environment, the copy, the reflection and projections of bits and self-similarity of the world wide web. It's the most challenging environment for truth. So it becomes about something else entirely. And yet there's so much being searched and shared! (self - i - mostly)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Thanks, I'll review the house rules again.

Just rationality would suffice. It's a discussion forum after all. If your ideas really need visual aids to explain, please indicate in which way they might address my questions or why just words will not do it. My questions were quite specific and I doubt some older video would address those. Even if I watch them I'd end up having to address the whole thing and the discussion will be out of focus. Perhaps a separate thread is advisable where you post the video and suggest feedback or discussion on the whole thing?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jupiviv, so where were we?

Firstly, causality is not a function of change or anything else. Secondly, change cannot have any functions because it is not an entity of any kind.

Okay, that's where! What I meant is that things "have causes" or a causality, a nature, because of changes. Or because there's causality -- if that's a better word to use.

As for "rate of change", what you really mean is the rate of change of *change* itself rather than some specific object, so the term as you use it is meaningless.

It's the same thing really: the only change is the perceived difference between what appears to change and what appears not to. My point however was that even if we'd talk about "different rates of change", we still need constancy to measure these rates.

It isn't possible to demonstrate that X *isn't* Y when nothing indicates that X *is* Y! You are merely assuming without reason that all axioms are identical to the one you proposed. I have demonstrated above and previously that the dualism you propose is arbitrary, whereas the dualism of for example A and not-A can be demonstrated to not be arbitrary. Unless you can demonstrate that the latter is arbitrary as well, which you haven't, you do not have an argument.

Sorry. It's entirely unclear to me what you tried to say here! If you think it's important you should try to rephrase.

Got me there :) What I should have said is that the proof for an axiom/premise follows from the axiom itself. Where the supposed proof does not follow from the axiom itself, you have what I termed "external" proof and thus a false axiom.

The axiom never requires any proof. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called axiom but for example theorem which can be derived from axiomatic truths.

Actually, anything whatsoever would prove the higher truth, therefore excluding *specific* proof (the kind required by science and ordinary reasoning).

There's always a context to contextual "truths" or beings like you and me. In that sense it will be a bit more specific and not some random pick. In theory yes, anything whatsoever could be taken as starting point to reach which axioms are upholding it (no "proof" though).

Or just as well to learn: uncertain ways, uncertain life and uncertain truths.

Which can be anything you want them to be, including certain ways, life and truths. What you really want to be "uncertain" of is what those things actually are!

To learn how to be uncertain about uncertain things. That's a truthful understanding to gain. And at the same time becoming certain with the absolute.

[jupiviv]

What I meant is that things "have causes" or a causality, a nature, because of changes. Or because there's causality -- if that's a better word to use.

So change causes the causes that cause things - got it!

As for "rate of change", what you really mean is the rate of change of *change* itself rather than some specific object, so the term as you use it is meaningless.

It's the same thing really: the only change is the perceived difference between what appears to change and what appears not to. My point however was that even if we'd talk about "different rates of change", we still need constancy to measure these rates.

What appears to change or not change is, by definition, doing precisely that. I never argued against the notion that constants are necessary for measuring rates of change of *things* as (opposed to change itself, whatever that means). You also seem to be assuming that some hidden continuum of "real" change creates appearances of temporary changes and constancy, which assumption is fallacious for various reasons (some mentioned previously).

It isn't possible to demonstrate that X *isn't* Y when nothing indicates that X *is* Y! You are merely assuming without reason that all axioms are identical to the one you proposed. I have demonstrated above and previously that the dualism you propose is arbitrary, whereas the dualism of for example A and not-A can be demonstrated to not be arbitrary. Unless you can demonstrate that the latter is arbitrary as well, which you haven't, you do not have an argument.

Sorry. It's entirely unclear to me what you tried to say here! If you think it's important you should try to rephrase.

You are assuming for no reason that all axioms are arbitrary/magical for the same reasons I called your specific axiom magical.

Got me there :) What I should have said is that the proof for an axiom/premise follows from the axiom itself. Where the supposed proof does not follow from the axiom itself, you have what I termed "external" proof and thus a false axiom.

The axiom never requires any proof. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called axiom but for example theorem which can be derived from axiomatic truths.

Axioms are self-*evident* or self-*proving*, which is what I said they are. Let's take the axiom that the dualism of change and permanence applies to the nature of things. It is not self-evident. It can neither be observed nor conceived logically, for reasons stated before.

Actually, anything whatsoever would prove the higher truth, therefore excluding *specific* proof (the kind required by science and ordinary reasoning).

There's always a context to contextual "truths" or beings like you and me. In that sense it will be a bit more specific and not some random pick. In theory yes, anything whatsoever could be taken as starting point to reach which axioms are upholding it (no "proof" though).

Proof is the demonstration of reality/real things. If the truth that change and permanence can be the nature of anything is a higher truth, or any kind of truth, then it can be demonstrated/proven in some way. It doesn't matter if it is self-evident or not.

Or just as well to learn: uncertain ways, uncertain life and uncertain truths.

Which can be anything you want them to be, including certain ways, life and truths. What you really want to be "uncertain" of is what those things actually are!

To learn how to be uncertain about uncertain things. That's a truthful understanding to gain. And at the same time becoming certain with the absolute.

This looks like prevarication. You don't want certain aspects of your worldview analysed, so are complicating those aspects while simplifying the aspects which I agree with.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What I meant is that things "have causes" or a causality, a nature, because of changes. Or because there's causality -- if that's a better word to use.

So change causes the causes that cause things - got it!

Obviously causality itself has no cause. But it's certainly no thing and has no existence because of that! Unless we'd say it's the only thing which has (or "absolutely exists') and declare all caused things as non-existent. But because of change we can know about causality as principle or know about anything at all. That's why causality and change are both principles of an absolute nature. They are needed to have anything at all -- this all can be reasoned. In the end they are both names for the same, only expressing different perspectives on the same no-thing.

You also seem to be assuming that some hidden continuum of "real" change creates appearances of temporary changes and constancy

Not really. What I have been asserting is causality and change because you cannot have things, awareness or appearances without them. Ever! Once there's nothing at all, emptiness, all these assertions and assumptions are not needed. The temporary things as shadow of eternal change. You cannot strip one without the other.

Axioms are self-*evident* or self-*proving*, which is what I said they are. Let's take the axiom that the dualism of change and permanence applies to the nature of things. It is not self-evident. It can neither be observed nor conceived logically, for reasons stated before.

They are never "self-proving". That's a fantasy word! For any proof you need first a theory or string of reasons based on those axioms, based on the assumption "axiom = true". There's no way around this but having no other way is not proof: it's a path.

Proof is the demonstration of reality/real things.

You're equalling ultimate proof with display or appearance. And then walk away. Haha! That's real avoidance of the issue.

[jupiviv]

So change causes the causes that cause things - got it!

Obviously causality itself has no cause. But it's certainly no thing and has no existence because of that! Unless we'd say it's the only thing which has (or "absolutely exists') and declare all caused things as non-existent. But because of change we can know about causality as principle or know about anything at all. That's why causality and change are both principles of an absolute nature. They are needed to have anything at all -- this all can be reasoned. In the end they are both names for the same, only expressing different perspectives on the same no-thing.

Change is not the whole of causality. There is also permanence and, you know, *things*. To reiterate my original point, change and permanence refer to temporal rather than spatial heterogeneity and homogeneity. It does not make sense to say that the nature of a thing is that it is followed either by itself or by another thing in time, just like it doesn't make sense to say that the nature of a thing is that it is surrounded by things similar to or different from itself.

And if change is a "principle of an absolute nature", then how can anything appear to be permanent?

You also seem to be assuming that some hidden continuum of "real" change creates appearances of temporary changes and constancy

Not really. What I have been asserting is causality and change because you cannot have things, awareness or appearances without them. Ever! Once there's nothing at all, emptiness, all these assertions and assumptions are not needed. The temporary things as shadow of eternal change. You cannot strip one without the other.

Permanence is also needed for things, awareness etc. to exist. Again, you've given no reasons why you are claiming that change is synonymous with causality.

Axioms are self-*evident* or self-*proving*, which is what I said they are. Let's take the axiom that the dualism of change and permanence applies to the nature of things. It is not self-evident. It can neither be observed nor conceived logically, for reasons stated before.

They are never "self-proving". That's a fantasy word! For any proof you need first a theory or string of reasons based on those axioms, based on the assumption "axiom = true". There's no way around this but having no other way is not proof: it's a path.

"Self-evident" means "self-proving". Something real has to be demonstrated one way or another.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Change is not the whole of causality.

Change and causality, the words, are describing the same absolute in a particular but quite similar way.

There is also permanence and, you know, *things*. To reiterate my original point, change and permanence refer to temporal rather than spatial heterogeneity and homogeneity. It does not make sense to say that the nature of a thing is that it is followed either by itself or by another thing in time, just like it doesn't make sense to say that the nature of a thing is that it is surrounded by things similar to or different from itself.

There's ultimately no such thing as "permanence". The only possible constancy is the absoluteness of existence, the eternity of Tao. But however that cannot be thought without contradiction arising. And all life is that contradiction. As long as that's understand, it doesn't have to become ignorance.

And if change is a "principle of an absolute nature", then how can anything appear to be permanent?

Appearances have nothing to do with absolute reality. That's why. Not even the appearance of change! As if one could somewhere see the eternity of change.

Permanence is also needed for things, awareness etc. to exist. Again, you've given no reasons why you are claiming that change is synonymous with causality.

Anything which is "needed" for things to exist would be yet another form of causality. Since permanency and change are two sides of the same coin, all one needs to do is to find a word for the coin. A good word is causality. Its nature only being possible to conceive of as constant while it can only be experienced as change.

"Self-evident" means "self-proving". Something real has to be demonstrated one way or another.

How would you go about doing that? Demonstrations are always rule based, law based, theory based. Otherwise it demonstrates nothing.

[Pam Seeback]

jupiviv wrote:
Change is not the whole of causality.

Diebert: Change and causality, the words, are describing the same absolute in a particular but quite similar way.

Jupiviv might be addressing the laws of causality, thinking them to be permanent, for example, the law of hunger 'within' hunger or the law of lust (procreation) 'within' lust, but upon closer analysis, this is realized to be wrong view. Why? Because that which is dependent on change is not changeless.

Diebert: There's ultimately no such thing as "permanence". The only possible constancy is the absoluteness of existence, the eternity of Tao. But however that cannot be thought without contradiction arising. And all life is that contradiction. As long as that's understand, it doesn't have to become ignorance.

The desire for and subsequent search for permanence, the end of change/contradiction, is the root cause of stress. Usually the initial ignorance is to seek permanence in objects or form, then to seek permanence in the subject (me, I am, etc.), the perceived (formless) interpreter of form. Consciousness burns to fulfill its illogical dream of permanence. To use a Buddhist term, nirvana ("to blow out") is the end of this burning of the delusion of the thirst for permanence.

Anything which is "needed" for things to exist would be yet another form of causality. Since permanency and change are two sides of the same coin, all one needs to do is to find a word for the coin. A good word is causality. Its nature only being possible to conceive of as constant while it can only be experienced as change.

The conception of a constant (subject) that experiences change (objects/things) is of course a trick of the mind. Where spiritual delusion comes in is when one believes the subject actually is or actually can become constant/permanent. Doctrines of ascension come to mind.

Nutshell wisdom of causality:

Ignorance causing stress: there is an absolute subject within the relativity of things.
Wisdom causing the release of stress/ignorance: Relativity (not relativism, identity with the relative) is the absolute nature of things.

A personal note: it helps me enormously as I go through my day viewing consciousness in terms of release. That way, clinging to view (subject as absolute) is avoided.